Seattle-Area Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents

Generally, if you're going to argue with an armed soldier, it's best to retrieve your own AK before initiating the dispute.

Here lies our problem. You seem to think everyone person in Afghanistan is an ak47 wielding taliban Muslim extremist. How ignorant are you?

We invaded Afghanistan to capture bin laden and the Taliban who supposedly attacked us on 9/11. (Can we at least agree on that?)

The problem is that you seem to think the Taliban includes every single person Afghanistan. That my friend is blatantly wrong and ignorant. There are
many people who have nothing to do with extreme Islam or attacking America. Yet you are grouping them with the enemy.
You also seem to think that because one minority group in Afghanistan attacked our country that it gives us the right to do whatever we want to them,
because they are 'the enemy'.

Maybe we should do more to protect our borders and do more with internal national security and defense than go looking for elusive enemies. How long
have we been in this war for? We still haven't won...

The proof is in the puddin' I respect our troops but what have we accomplished so far? Not nearly enough. Radical Islam is still an extreme threat.
And we can't occupy every middle eastern country. So let's focus on national defense instead.

It should be a simple matter to provide some evidence to back your statement up, and shut me up.

In the real life documentary "Restrepo" a troop of soldiers were being shot at by 1 Taliban man in a village. So they called an air-strike on the
building and killed a few children that happened to be in it. After the strike they went and searched the entire village for weapons. This was
captured on film. And this is only one example. Now you can shut up.

They are both simple statement of fact. It's nothing short of amazing that you find either of those statements insulting. They certainly can't
compare with your name-calling (i.e. "ignorant', "you are an idiot", "I used to be ignorant like you", "What an ignorant response", etc), but if you
are so thin skinned that you find them offensive, I apologize.

You seem to implied I had no heart of value of human life when you said :

I personally think a LOT of good came from that war, and I'll not cheapen the deaths involved by claiming otherwise. You apparently aren't encumbered
with any such sentiment.

I have a heart for my fellow man, I respect those soldiers for fighting for what they believed to be a just cause. However I only wish they knew that
their deaths were somewhat in vein, at least that is the way I see it.
Apology accepted.

The American Revolution was absolutely worth the deaths, in my opinion.

As I said before I disagree. Were already way off topic so I won't go into detail.

I had a lot of family fighting in the Civil War, too. That one was ALSO worth it.

This one I do agree with.

it's mighty presumptuous of you to think that I don't know about war. I do. I know a lot more about death, dying, loss, and war than you seem to
realize.

I never assumed you didn't know about war. In fact I could tell by your first post that you were a veteran. I did however assume that you never had a
close family die next to you in war. And having a great great grandfather who you never knew die is a little different then watching your brother or
father being blown up by a cannon ball next to you. Once they're dead they're dead. And at that point a little tea tax is worth having your brother or
father back. That's the way I see it.

You are somehow equating purchases with a tax given to foreign governments?

But is it not basically the same thing? think about it. If your being taxed by a foreign country does your money not go there? And if your buying a
foreign import does your money not also go there?

Yeah, all except the "answer" part....

Maybe if you look from a different perspective...

By the way, sorry if I offended you by relating you to a TSA agent. However i think if you look at it from an outsider you might be able to see the
correlation.

Generally, if you're going to argue with an armed soldier, it's best to retrieve your own AK before initiating the dispute.

Here lies our problem. You seem to think everyone person in Afghanistan is an ak47 wielding taliban Muslim extremist. How ignorant are you?

Just ignorant enough, I reckon. Nowhere have I said, however, that every person in Afghanistan is an "AK47 (AK47s are passe, btw - it's now AKMs and
AK74's, and has been for well over 20 years. The generic "AK" covers them all) wielding Taliban Muslim extremist". I don't believe that, and neither
do I believe that everyone there is an "innocent". It's not an all or none proposition, and I suspect THAT peculiar misconception is actually where
our problem lies.

We invaded Afghanistan to capture bin laden and the Taliban who supposedly attacked us on 9/11. (Can we at least agree on that?)

Not quite, but we're at least close to agreement there. We invaded to capture bin Laden and ERADICATE the Taliban. The Talban had nothing to do
directly with 9/11, but they were being obstructive in the pursuit of bin Laden and al Qaida. So obstructive, in fact, that they were providing them
what they thought was "safe harbor" - but it turned out not to have been quite as safe as they thought. Bummer.

The problem is that you seem to think the Taliban includes every single person Afghanistan. That my friend is blatantly wrong and ignorant. There are
many people who have nothing to do with extreme Islam or attacking America. Yet you are grouping them with the enemy.

Nope. I never said that, and as I indicated above, I don't believe that. I'm quite familiar with the difference, and I don't group them with the
enemy. I group the enemy with the enemy. The nature of a guerrilla war is that the guerrillas hide among the populace (Mao said they swim in the
population as fish in the sea), and so that is where you have to go to ferret them out. Just as you go to water to fish, rather than to a desert, you
go to the population to sort out the enemy hiding among them.

You also seem to think that because one minority group in Afghanistan attacked our country that it gives us the right to do whatever we want to them,
because they are 'the enemy'.

If, as it seems from the sentence structure, by "them" you mean "the enemy", then that assessment is correct, that's exactly what I think. If by
"them" instead you mean civilians, there are guidelines (inadequate, imho) to deal with them properly, and they should NOT be treated just any old way
at will.

Maybe we should do more to protect our borders and do more with internal national security and defense than go looking for elusive enemies. How long
have we been in this war for? We still haven't won...

Your point on the borders I agree with, wholeheartedly. "internal national security" not so much. As far as the elusive enemies goes, one MUST go
looking for them, actively run them to ground. Otherwise, they have free rein to pop up at will and throw a hurting on you, knowing that you won't do
a damned thing about it.

I also agree that we've been in this war far too long. It should have been wrapped up in under two years, and had it been prosecuted properly, it
would have been, leaving the vast majority of Afghans kindly disposed towards us. For that egregious blunder, I blame the generals and the
politicians. I've written extensively elsewhere at ATS on how I think it should have been done, and could have been done to gain those exact results,
so I won't go into it in any great detail here.

Before you go to assuming what I think again, however, no, not a "scorched Earth" policy. Neither that nor the massive influx of conventional troops
we've seen are the way to accomplish that. Now, it's too late to fix it. The way we won against the Soviets was to prosecute a war of attrition by the
mujahideen. That works wonderfully against massed conventional troops, and that's what's going to happen again unless they get someone in charge that
has a clue about how it works. Conventional generals need not apply, but they tend to hog the limelight.

Dumbasses.

The proof is in the puddin' I respect our troops but what have we accomplished so far? Not nearly enough. Radical Islam is still an extreme threat.
And we can't occupy every middle eastern country. So let's focus on national defense instead.

To be honest, I'm all for pulling home all the regular troops, for just the reasons I stated above. They've done a hell of a job considering the
generals and politicians they've been given to work with, and it's time for a rest back home. Line the borders with them if you have to, but bring 'em
home. There are people who specialize in just what we need to be doing overseas to combat the threat, and they should be cut loose to do that job
right.

See, I don't see THAT as an either/or choice, either. There's no reason we can't do both, and do them a damned sight better than the current
thinking.

It should be a simple matter to provide some evidence to back your statement up, and shut me up.

In the real life documentary "Restrepo" a troop of soldiers were being shot at by 1 Taliban man in a village. So they called an air-strike on the
building and killed a few children that happened to be in it. After the strike they went and searched the entire village for weapons. This was
captured on film. And this is only one example. Now you can shut up.

That does nothing to address the alleged "illegality" of the searches. Personally, I wouldn't have called in an air strike for one guy, but that's
just me. That is a failing of conventional thought, and I suppose it may be the way they train them these days. I WOULD have performed the subsequent
village search after he'd been dealt with, though.

Afghanistan is a funny place. A man's house is "haram", forbidden, off limits. That's all well and good, and I can live with that and respect it -
until he hides someone there who is shooting at me. Then the concept of "haram" goes out the window. I'm going to get that shooter, and make damned
sure he don't have friends around. The best way for Afghan pride to circumvent that eventuality is not to harbor the shooters to begin with.

Another funny thing there is that if you enter a village, you are a "guest", and their brand of hospitality dictates that no harm come to you while
there, even if you're a deadly enemy. Once you cross the line going out of the village, however, all bets are off and you're fair game. It works very
well with the concept of "haram", when it works together. The problem there was that someone shot at the "guests" from inside the village, violating
that precept. From that point on, they had no expectation of having the haram nature of a man's castle respected.

The culture is amazingly civilized to be viewed as "backwards" here, when it works. You should look up "nannawatay", "badal". and "milmastia" to get
an understanding. I'm not sure how they're actually spelled, that's how they're pronounced. Those are the main points of Pashtunwali, the code of the
Pashtun. "Civilized" people here could learn something from it, and decision makers could DAMN sure learn something about how to get things done right
in Afghanistan from it.

The Soviets didn't learn from it, either, and we see where that got 'em.

I never assumed you didn't know about war. In fact I could tell by your first post that you were a veteran. I did however assume that you never had a
close family die next to you in war. And having a great great grandfather who you never knew die is a little different then watching your brother or
father being blown up by a cannon ball next to you. Once they're dead they're dead. And at that point a little tea tax is worth having your brother or
father back. That's the way I see it.

I have a brother. I've seen him once in the last 10 years. During the course of a war, you will make connections with fellow soldiers that are in many
ways closer than the bonds of family, believe it or not. That's because of shared hardships and dangers, knowing that you've got each others backs
through whatever comes. It's hard to explain it exactly. Still, some of those people you've bonded that way with will not come home under their own
power. You'll just have to take my word for it - or not, as the inclination strikes - that those losses have every bit as strong an impact as blood
relatives.

So, yeah, I've had close "family" die right next to me. Had one bleed out right in my lap, not a damn thing I could do. But that's another story.

You are somehow equating purchases with a tax given to foreign governments?

But is it not basically the same thing? think about it. If your being taxed by a foreign country does your money not go there? And if your buying a
foreign import does your money not also go there?

Ah, but the difference, in my mind, is that I can (and do) reject those purchases when I please, and a TAX is supposed to be mandatory, no choice in
the matter. The Revolution may never have been fought if the taxes had been made voluntary, eh?

Any compulsory taxes I pay to a foreign government will be deposited 53 grains at a time.

By the way, sorry if I offended you by relating you to a TSA agent. However i think if you look at it from an outsider you might be able to see the
correlation.

No offense taken. I can actually see how from some perspectives that might have been taken as a compliment

I don't believe that, and neither do I believe that everyone there is an "innocent". It's not an all or none proposition, and I suspect THAT
peculiar misconception is actually where our problem lies.

And neither do I. Maybe you misread one of my comments? All I said was that there are troops killing innocents. Never did I say all were innocent.
Fact is, there ARE innocents being killed, as well as enemies. That's how every 'war' is. I don't see how that's difficult to understand?

We invaded to capture bin Laden and ERADICATE the Taliban.

Still haven't accomplished that. But I guess that doesn't matter to you and a lot of others. *shrug*

Nope. I never said that, and as I indicated above, I don't believe that. I'm quite familiar with the difference, and I don't group them with the
enemy. I group the enemy with the enemy. The nature of a guerrilla war is that the guerrillas hide among the populace (Mao said they swim in the
population as fish in the sea), and so that is where you have to go to ferret them out. Just as you go to water to fish, rather than to a desert, you
go to the population to sort out the enemy hiding among them.

Right and since there are enemies hiding among the general populace innocents are being killed with the enemies. Thus the statement, 'our troops are
killing innocents'. (Not implying that all are innocent, however innocents ARE being killed.) >were going in circles here man.

If by "them" instead you mean civilians, there are guidelines (inadequate, imho) to deal with them properly, and they should NOT be treated just any
old way at will.

Too bad a lot of times they ARE. I respect our troops but fact is they are human and make mistakes too.

As far as the elusive enemies goes, one MUST go looking for them, actively run them to ground.

And kill a bunch of innocent women and children and non taliban, non al-qaeda in the process. Okay that makes sense.

I also agree that we've been in this war far too long. It should have been wrapped up in under two years, and had it been prosecuted properly, it
would have been, leaving the vast majority of Afghans kindly disposed towards us. For that egregious blunder, I blame the generals and the
politicians. I've written extensively elsewhere at ATS on how I think it should have been done, and could have been done to gain those exact results,
so I won't go into it in any great detail here.

I think if we focused more on defense then attack we could have prevented 9/11. (But that is another matter of itself.)
However if we were able to go in, eradicate the taliban with minimal innocent afghan/US casualties then that would've been great, Unfortunately that
is not the case and we need to pull the plug.

To be honest, I'm all for pulling home all the regular troops, for just the reasons I stated above. They've done a hell of a job considering the
generals and politicians they've been given to work with, and it's time for a rest back home. Line the borders with them if you have to, but bring
'em home. There are people who specialize in just what we need to be doing overseas to combat the threat, and they should be cut loose to do that job
right.

I coiuldn't agree more, maybe you're not so ignorant after all!

That's all well and good, and I can live with that and respect it - until he hides someone there who is shooting at me. Then the concept of "haram"
goes out the window.

Yeah unfortunately it's usually some teenage kid that was recruited by some traveling radical Islamic recruiters. They give him some weapons and tell
him to kill the infadel. He ends up shooting at our troops and then his whole family ends up dead. Were not fighting a war we can win. And like I
said. Innocents are dying.

BTW when I say 'illegal searches' I'm not talking about the 'code' that our marines are supposed to follow when searching villages. I'm
referring to the fact that our troops shouldn't even be there in the first place. If you trespass on someone's property and there are warning signs
telling you trespassers will be shot. Don't expect not to be shot at. And don't think that after you kill the guy it's 'okay' to search his home.

Another funny thing there is that if you enter a village, you are a "guest", and their brand of hospitality dictates that no harm come to you while
there, even if you're a deadly enemy. Once you cross the line going out of the village, however, all bets are off and you're fair game. It works
very well with the concept of "haram", when it works together. The problem there was that someone shot at the "guests" from inside the village,
violating that precept. From that point on, they had no expectation of having the haram nature of a man's castle respected. The culture is amazingly
civilized to be viewed as "backwards" here, when it works. You should look up "nannawatay", "badal". and "milmastia" to get an understanding.
I'm not sure how they're actually spelled, that's how they're pronounced. Those are the main points of Pashtunwali, the code of the Pashtun.
"Civilized" people here could learn something from it, and decision makers could DAMN sure learn something about how to get things done right in
Afghanistan from it.

Interesting, I didn't know that. I guess our troops don't either. And another reason why we should leave.

So, yeah, I've had close "family" die right next to me. Had one bleed out right in my lap, not a damn thing I could do. But that's another
story.

Sorry that happened, but was the cause of the war worth having your friend die? For me, it would have to be a no. Unless, my people and I faced
imminent danger of being invaded and enslaved. I don't see al-qaeda taking over America anytime soon.

Ah, but the difference, in my mind, is that I can (and do) reject those purchases when I please, and a TAX is supposed to be mandatory, no choice in
the matter. The Revolution may never have been fought if the taxes had been made voluntary, eh?

You're going to have to pay taxes no matter what. Even after the revolution they had to pay taxes to the government. The only difference I see is in
the first instance, a queen or monarch chooses where to spend it, and in the latter, elected officials get to choose where to spend it. The only
problem here is that both governments can easily be corrupt, look at the politicians that are in congress now. So again, I don't think all the
bloodshed was worth trading one tyrant for an even bigger one.

I don't believe that, and neither do I believe that everyone there is an "innocent". It's not an all or none proposition, and I suspect THAT
peculiar misconception is actually where our problem lies.

And neither do I. Maybe you misread one of my comments? All I said was that there are troops killing innocents. Never did I say all were innocent.
Fact is, there ARE innocents being killed, as well as enemies. That's how every 'war' is. I don't see how that's difficult to
understand?

You're right. In every war there are at least two (some of the more entertaining ones have more) opposing sides. A third faction is always those
caught in the middle, who always get the short end of the stick, take the worst part of the damage. Every war. I don't know of a single one yet in
the entire history of mankind that has not produced what is euphemistically called "collateral damage". That sort of damage can never be eliminated,
but it can be minimized. Even the eradication of war will not eliminate it, for a number of reasons.

I see reports of exactly that sort of damage on the news, right here in my own neighborhood in the US, and we're not supposed to be embroiled in any
sort of war locally. The damage is still there, none the less. They don't call it that, of course. Wouldn't want to scare the children, but
it is what it is.

We invaded to capture bin Laden and ERADICATE the Taliban.

Still haven't accomplished that. But I guess that doesn't matter to you and a lot of others. *shrug*

Sure it does, or I wouldn't be arguing the point, and I certainly wouldn't have posted the solution to that problem at ATS, or directly pitched it
to higher-ups. Nothing I can do if they won't listen other than keep on braying about it, just in case someone, somewhere, hears.

Right and since there are enemies hiding among the general populace innocents are being killed with the enemies. Thus the statement, 'our troops are
killing innocents'. (Not implying that all are innocent, however innocents ARE being killed.) >were going in circles here man.

OK, agreed. We can get past that now. Bickering over solutions is preferable to bickering over details.

If by "them" instead you mean civilians, there are guidelines (inadequate, imho) to deal with them properly, and they should NOT be treated just any
old way at will.

Too bad a lot of times they ARE. I respect our troops but fact is they are human and make mistakes too.

It's more a matter of training and leadership, which is where I find the faults. Yes, "mistakes" are made, and that could be minimized through
better training and leadership. A certain portion of ANY population is at best psychopathic. Those can and should be weeded out, the rest better
trained, and leadership make smart decisions in their employment rather than just throwing this bunch of guys at that bunch of guys and seeing who's
still standing when the dust settles.

In my opinion, far better results could be achieved by reducing raw numbers in the theater, increasing the quality of training for those still there,
and gearing both training and employment of the troops, and decision making of the higher-ups toward the sort of war being fought, rather than
thinking guerrilla wars are fought just like WWII.

That would mean fewer battles (although pound for pound they'd be more intense), fewer instances of "collateral damage", and a chance at success.
Guerrilla wars of this character are won by guerrillas. Conventional troops are just led around by the nose. They get worn out attacking what melts
away, throwing all that massive strength at smoke. During the Soviet war there, by the end of it we had them mostly buttoned up on their bases. Rocket
and mortar attacks on those bases, as point targets, were commonplace, and when they'd counter assault, we'd just sky out of the AO. The ONE real
danger - and challenge - was the Spetznaz guys they'd send out hunting. Small groups, harder to find and predict the movements of. I tell you, those
Spetznaz guys were GOOD at what they did. The Russians apparently had the same problem as the US does - not enough of them vs. "regulars", and
misemployment by the higher-ups.

In other words, we won by restricting movement of the massed troops, then demoralizing them where they sat. That demoralization filtered back to
Mother Russia to the civilian population (and the higher up decision makers, who started viewing it as "unwinnable"), and the combination directly
resulted in the 1988-89 pull out.

The Afghans were and are courageous fighters, but that alone was no match for the Soviets, nor is it any sort of match for us now. IF you beat a man
in his own MIND, however, his ass is sure to follow in the defeat. The same applies among nations.

As far as the elusive enemies goes, one MUST go looking for them, actively run them to ground.

And kill a bunch of innocent women and children and non taliban, non al-qaeda in the process. Okay that makes sense.

Not necessarily. That effect can be minimized, but it won't be by continuing to employ the same tactics. Small hunter-killer teams of guerrillas, who
don't create a huge signature on the landscape to track them with (dust plumes from mechanized columns and the like) sent out to hunt down and fix
the enemy, with reaction troops in reserve to concentrate force on those points Is what is needed. Guerrilla war is primarily viewed by conventional
generals as taking and holding area, land. For that, they have to have massive numbers of troops to occupy what they take. Guerrillas don't work that
way, and conventional troops can't win if they do, even if they win every single battle.

Guerrillas just melt away to somewhere else, and the problem is not solved. You then have to bring in MORE conventional troops to occupy the area they
just vacated, and there simply aren't enough troops on the planet to do that to saturation and completion. In practice, they pull conventional troops
out of one "pacified" area to occupy the newly won ground, and the guerrillas then have a brand new base in the old occupied area. It's like a
constantly stirred pot that never finishes cooking.

It's in that stirring where most of the civilians are hurt and killed. When that happens, all of the goodwill "hearts and minds" campaigns in the
world won't fix it. Better to prevent it through good planning and execution to begin with. The Soviet had the same problem, They had good troops,
but the decision makers were mis-employing them, using a "WWII European Theater" mindset. They got what they got. We also have excellent troops -
but piss-poor decision makers.

I think if we focused more on defense then attack we could have prevented 9/11. (But that is another matter of itself.)

I don't believe anything can ever entirely eliminate the possibility. The world is too big, has too many people in it. No way to watch them ALL at
the same time, although the repressive US regime is trying... that's exactly WHY it's getting more and more repressive.

However if we were able to go in, eradicate the taliban with minimal innocent afghan/US casualties then that would've been great, Unfortunately that
is not the case and we need to pull the plug.

They could have, and were on track to do exactly that. Then the dumbassed conventional generals and politicians got in on the act, and mucked it all
up. I personally am willing to erase every living thing in my line of sight to prevent allowing the enemy a "victory", but it shouldn't come to
that. They played the decision makers like a fiddle, and that ought to be where we look to to make changes and replacements first and foremost "by
any means necessary" to borrow phrase, not start out with Afghan villagers.

See, to my way of thinking, putting the hurt on the villagers guarantees the result the Taliban are after - changing out the decision makers to
EFFECTIVE decision makers kills several birds with one stone. It makes for a more effective war, more quickly concluded, and jerks the rug right out
from under the enemy. Their gripe (so they say) is against those decision makers, and they just take it out on us because they're afraid of them.
I'm all for settling accounts all around. That benefits everyone.

To be honest, I'm all for pulling home all the regular troops, for just the reasons I stated above. They've done a hell of a job considering the
generals and politicians they've been given to work with, and it's time for a rest back home. Line the borders with them if you have to, but bring
'em home. There are people who specialize in just what we need to be doing overseas to combat the threat, and they should be cut loose to do that job
right.

I coiuldn't agree more, maybe you're not so ignorant after all!

Hush now, you'll make me blush!

Yeah unfortunately it's usually some teenage kid that was recruited by some traveling radical Islamic recruiters. They give him some weapons and tell
him to kill the infadel. He ends up shooting at our troops and then his whole family ends up dead. Were not fighting a war we can win. And like I
said. Innocents are dying.

It doesn't matter to me in the least WHO is shooting. If they're big enough to shoot at me, they're big enough to accept the results. A bullet
neither cares who launches it or who catches it, it just exists. Perhaps THEIR leadership needs to be swapped out, too, in order to prevent such
problems as the one you describe.

BTW when I say 'illegal searches' I'm not talking about the 'code' that our marines are supposed to follow when searching villages. I'm
referring to the fact that our troops shouldn't even be there in the first place. If you trespass on someone's property and there are warning signs
telling you trespassers will be shot. Don't expect not to be shot at. And don't think that after you kill the guy it's 'okay' to search his home.

That then is my problem. If someone says 'illegal' to me, they should be able to provide the statutes that make it illegal. Otherwise, I'm going to
ignore them and do what I want. Come to think of it, I might ignore them any ways, but if I do, they at least have a case against me, The key there is
the case. Making claims of what is not will not win one.

"Illegal" has a very specific meaning to me. Not the rules that soldiers operate under, but the LAWS in place. If I go to a guy's house to deal
with him having come to mine and killed my kid, I'm not trespassing, I'm handling the problem. God have mercy on any one who tries to protect him,
because I won't. They made their decision and aligned themselves against me already.

Interesting, I didn't know that. I guess our troops don't either. And another reason why we should leave.

Not so much a reason to "leave" as it is a reason to employ fewer troops, but troops trained thoroughly in the intricacies of the situation. I sort
of enjoy meeting "foreigners" and learning about their culture. By the same token, I know that when I'm THERE, I operate by THEIR rules and
customs, not mine, for the most part.

Sorry that happened, but was the cause of the war worth having your friend die? For me, it would have to be a no. Unless, my people and I faced
imminent danger of being invaded and enslaved. I don't see al-qaeda taking over America anytime soon.

The cause of the war was NOT worth it, but the reason for our involvement WAS, for me. I took the same chances. We all drew from the same straw bundle
when we went in. It was just the luck of the draw as to who walked back out. Either way, it had to be done, and it could just as easily have been ME
bleeding out as him, Yes, it was worth even that. If it hadn't been, I'd have just stayed home. I'm not one to expose my mother's favorite son to
danger on a whim.

You're going to have to pay taxes no matter what. Even after the revolution they had to pay taxes to the government. The only difference I see is in
the first instance, a queen or monarch chooses where to spend it, and in the latter, elected officials get to choose where to spend it. The only
problem here is that both governments can easily be corrupt, look at the politicians that are in congress now. So again, I don't think all the
bloodshed was worth trading one tyrant for an even bigger one.

Yes, you have to pay taxes no matter what. It matters IMMENSELY to me who I pay them to. Keep in mind that we didn't trade "one tyrant for another"
at that point. It was the slackness of subsequent generations that allowed the new tyranny to creep right in and take over. Not the revolutionaries'
fault, it's OUR fault. That means, to my mind, that the Revolution was worth it, but we have what we have because subsequent generations didn't
think so enough to do it again as necessary.

Sure it does, or I wouldn't be arguing the point, and I certainly wouldn't have posted the solution to that problem at ATS, or directly pitched it to
higher-ups. Nothing I can do if they won't listen other than keep on braying about it, just in case someone, somewhere, hears.

You should call 'em and tell 'em your idea... until then things are only getting worse. The number of deaths per year is only increasing. For me, I
think 9+ years is long enough, considering the revolutionary war only took 8.

OK, agreed. We can get past that now. Bickering over solutions is preferable to bickering over details.

Right-that's the first time you said you agree. So yeah.

In my opinion, far better results could be achieved by reducing raw numbers in the theater, increasing the quality of training for those still there,
and gearing both training and employment of the troops, and decision making of the higher-ups toward the sort of war being fought, rather than
thinking guerrilla wars are fought just like WWII.

You seem to have a lot of great ideas about how to win the war, or fight more successfully, which is great-but I just don't think we should be there
to begin with.

Not necessarily. That effect can be minimized, but it won't be by continuing to employ the same tactics. Small hunter-killer teams of guerrillas, who
don't create a huge signature on the landscape to track them with (dust plumes from mechanized columns and the like) sent out to hunt down and fix the
enemy, with reaction troops in reserve to concentrate force on those points Is what is needed. Guerrilla war is primarily viewed by conventional
generals as taking and holding area, land. For that, they have to have massive numbers of troops to occupy what they take. Guerrillas don't work that
way, and conventional troops can't win if they do, even if they win every single battle.

I agree, maybe we should've changed our strategy sooner? Regardless, I still don't think we should be there. I used to be really ignorant. I assumed
that everyone in afghanistan was evil taliban hate america type. I felt justified whenever a civilian was killed. I thought 'well that's what they get
for supporting their anti-america militia. It's only recently that my eyes have been open to the realness and cruelty of war. Innocent kids and women
are being killed. People that are just minding their own business and want to be left alone. They are getting caught in the crossfire. That saddens
me. Unfortunately this is the cold hard reality of war. Have you ever seen “The Pacific”? That really happened...it's just sickening. All because
we wanted to prevent the spread of communism. Well guess what, communism will eventually implode on itself. And all that loss of life...it just
doesn't seem worth it to me. Sorry I'm rambling...

No way to watch them ALL at the same time, although the repressive US regime is trying... that's exactly WHY it's getting more and more repressive.

Lol true...but there are good examples of decent airport security. Israel for example uses top notch physchologists, interrogators, and detectives.

from random website israel airport security
"The safest airline in the world, it is widely agreed, is El Al, Israel's national carrier. The safest airport is Ben Gurion International, in Tel
Aviv. No El Al plane has been attacked by terrorists in more than three decades, and no flight leaving Ben Gurion has ever been hijacked."

A bullet neither cares who launches it or who catches it, it just exists.

That sounds like something from Lord of War.

Perhaps THEIR leadership needs to be swapped out, too, in order to prevent such problems as the one you describe.

Unfortunately they don't shed a tear for the dead. In radical Islam, the ends justify the means. If a 8 year old boy and his family have to die for
the 12th imam to come back, then so be it.
Often the family has no idea that their sons are being recruited and don't find out till they hear the rain of fire.

I'm not trespassing, I'm handling the problem. God have mercy on any one who tries to protect him, because I won't. They made their decision and
aligned themselves against me already.

Right, but shooting an RPG at his house and killing his grandparents, wife, daughter, 1 year old baby, and his dog would be overdoing it right? (well
maybe not the dog). And this is the type of incidence that happens occasionally, an air-strike is called on a village or farm and innocents are caught
in the crossfire. So since we can't root out the enemy successfully without extraneous casualties, and we aren't changing our tactics, let's allow
them to be safe in their homeland, and lets be safe in ours. That's why I'm really advocating for national defense. Maybe if they had a military that
was easily identifiable my opinion would differ.

Not so much a reason to "leave" as it is a reason to employ fewer troops, but troops trained thoroughly in the intricacies of the situation. I sort of
enjoy meeting "foreigners" and learning about their culture. By the same token, I know that when I'm THERE, I operate by THEIR rules and customs, not
mine, for the most part.

agreed

Keep in mind that we didn't trade "one tyrant for another" at that point. It was the slackness of subsequent generations that allowed the new tyranny
to creep right in and take over. Not the revolutionaries' fault, it's OUR fault.

That's the very reason that a disproportional number of kids and grannies are said to be searched at airport, and a disproportionate number of
Muslims are NOT searched... They don't want to be discriminatory...

Come to think of it, aren't THOSE practices discriminatory?

=======================================================

Freedish -

I'll get back to your post tomorrow. I'm trying to get my sleep schedule normalized again after the weekend, and right now I can hear my bed calling
softly to me...

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama expressed "deep regret" to his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai for the deaths of nine civilians killed in a
coalition air strike, officials said Thursday. Karzai says those who died were young children out collecting firewood and has warned that
international troops in Afghanistan face "huge problems" if the "daily killing of innocent civilians" does not stop. During their hour-long
conversation via video teleconference Wednesday, Obama and Karzai "agreed that such incidents undermine our shared efforts in fighting terrorism," the
White House said.

Apologies for the delay - I got caught up in reconstructing a coal swamp from the VA-KY-WV area from 310 million years ago, and neglected my response.
It's on auto-pilot now, so I have some time.

Originally posted by freedish
You should call 'em and tell 'em your idea... until then things are only getting worse. The number of deaths per year is only increasing. For me, I
think 9+ years is long enough, considering the revolutionary war only took 8.

They've never much listened to me before, and I can't see them suddenly starting now. I agree, 9 years is FAR too long. As I said before, if it had
been done properly, it could have been finished in 2 years, with far fewer US and civilian casualties.

You seem to have a lot of great ideas about how to win the war, or fight more successfully, which is great-but I just don't think we should be there
to begin with.

If we hadn't dropped the ball with an abrupt and thorough pullout after the Soviets left, there would be no need to be there now. For the most part,
the US simply walked away, in spite of several protests, when the Russians left. We should have instead rendered assistance in helping the Afghans
reconstruct the country THEY wanted (note that I don't include any illusions of 'democracy' in that equation, since the Afghans don't, either), and
there would have been no power vacuum for the Taliban to exploit to begin with. No Taliban, no refuge for AQ there, no reason for a 2001 US invasion.
There were those at the time practically BEGGING for US assistance to help the Afghans, and the higher-ups just decided to walk away. We got what we
got out of that.

I think we DID need to go, since that is where AQ was holed up at the moment, and the Taliban were shielding them. I don't thing it would have been
prudent to not respond at all. I also think, however, that it has been mishandled from the exact point where the conventional generals decided they
needed THEIR piece of the pie.

This then is another place we'll have to differ.

I agree, maybe we should've changed our strategy sooner?

The initial strategy worked out just fine, it was the change in strategy that mucked it all up. When Kabul fell and the Taliban were on the run, there
were less than 100 American troopers on the ground. It was a spectacular success, accomplished mostly by the Northern Alliance, with our assistance.
Then some jackass generals got their heads together and decided that strategy just wasn't going to work, because THEY weren't getting THEIR laurels.
They sent in a massive influx of US troops, and it went downhill from there.

Regardless, I still don't think we should be there. I used to be really ignorant. I assumed that everyone in afghanistan was evil taliban hate america
type. I felt justified whenever a civilian was killed. I thought 'well that's what they get for supporting their anti-america militia. It's only
recently that my eyes have been open to the realness and cruelty of war. Innocent kids and women are being killed. People that are just minding their
own business and want to be left alone. They are getting caught in the crossfire. That saddens me. Unfortunately this is the cold hard reality of war.

It saddens me, too. NO civilian casualties are ever justified, but they ALWAYS happen. I believe in this case they could be minimized much more, but
not the way they're going about it. It doesn't help matters that the Taliban Militias look just like regular civilians, but carrying weapons (that's a
hard case - nearly ALL Afghans carry weapons, and it's difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff), it doesn't help that the Taliban use the
civilians as shields, and it doesn't help that the US brass is trying to fight a guerrilla war with a conventional mindset. That entire combination is
a recipe for disaster, and disaster is what we're getting.

Have you ever seen “The Pacific”? That really happened...it's just sickening. All because we wanted to prevent the spread of communism. Well guess
what, communism will eventually implode on itself. And all that loss of life...it just doesn't seem worth it to me. Sorry I'm rambling...

No, I've never seen it. Communism MAY implode, but it still won't go without a fight. For a long while there, I thought it had been all but eradicated
after the Soviet collapse, but it appears that it just went underground, and lately there has been a disturbing resurgence of it. That resurgence is
hard for younger folks to recognize, since most of them never lived through the initial onslaught, and don't know what to look for, or the
catchphrases to listen for. It seems that while we were distracted by this 'new' terrorism, the collectivists started crawling out of the woodwork
again, taking advantage of the confusion and the new crop of folks who hadn't seen the elephant before.

I hope you're right, and I hope it does implode, but I have my doubts, and must keep my eyes peeled.

No way to watch them ALL at the same time, although the repressive US regime is trying... that's exactly WHY it's getting more and more repressive.

Lol true...but there are good examples of decent airport security. Israel for example uses top notch physchologists, interrogators, and detectives.

from random website israel airport security
"The safest airline in the world, it is widely agreed, is El Al, Israel's national carrier. The safest airport is Ben Gurion International, in Tel
Aviv. No El Al plane has been attacked by terrorists in more than three decades, and no flight leaving Ben Gurion has ever been hijacked."

EXACTLY! There are far better, less intrusive and more effective ways of doing it, yet we appear to be behind the curve on that, opting for repressive
measures instead. It makes one wonder as to the true agenda there.

A bullet neither cares who launches it or who catches it, it just exists.

That sounds like something from Lord of War.

It's no less true, for all that. The people behind those bullets, and the motivations behind those people, weigh far more in the equation than the
bullet themselves. Like a computer, a bullet only knows to do what it is told to do, and can accomplish great good, or great harm.

Perhaps THEIR leadership needs to be swapped out, too, in order to prevent such problems as the one you describe.

Unfortunately they don't shed a tear for the dead. In radical Islam, the ends justify the means. If a 8 year old boy and his family have to die for
the 12th imam to come back, then so be it.
Often the family has no idea that their sons are being recruited and don't find out till they hear the rain of fire.

True, and all the more reason to erase the leadership. It's hard to conceive of a muslim family being so out of touch with their own children -
they're a bit "closer" than the typical American family - but it DOES happen upon occasion.

Right, but shooting an RPG at his house and killing his grandparents, wife, daughter, 1 year old baby, and his dog would be overdoing it right? (well
maybe not the dog). And this is the type of incidence that happens occasionally, an air-strike is called on a village or farm and innocents are caught
in the crossfire.

Yup, that's overkill, and generally unnecessary. Just like they COULD have done at the Waco compound in the 90's they could catch the offender out,
rather than erasing the entire family. Hail to the chief, government in action, our tax dollars at work. No, I'm not for that sort of wholesale and
indiscriminate killing at all.

So since we can't root out the enemy successfully without extraneous casualties, and we aren't changing our tactics, let's allow them to be safe in
their homeland, and lets be safe in ours. That's why I'm really advocating for national defense. Maybe if they had a military that was easily
identifiable my opinion would differ.

It is precisely to foster that sort of opinion that guerrillas fight in the manner they do (indistinguishable from civilians until actively engaged).
Truth is, we COULD root out the enemy with a minimum of extraneous casualties, IF 'we' would change 'our' strategy. Instead, the decision makers THINK
the only tool in their box is a hammer, so every problem looks like a nail to them. Their 'blanket policy' is too short, leaves their feet
uncovered.

Regarding your next post, about Obama and Karzai holding a meeting of the minds, I agree that too many civilians are getting graunched. "My" way would
minimize that.

I'm not familiar with that specific incident, but it sounds like it was a misindentification during a ground strike by either an unmanned drone or a
strike aircraft without any forward observers, just doing visual ID from the air. That sort of misidentification could be all but eliminated using my
notion of counter-guerrilla hunter-killer teams to do the visual ID from the ground, calling in and directing the air strikes where nothing would be
wasted - neither the bomb itself, nor the innocents it snuffs out. It would be a win-win... except for the real guerrillas, of course.

He grasped me firmly but gently just above my elbow and guided me into a room, his room. Then he quietly shut the door and we were alone.

He approached me soundlessly, from behind, and spoke in a low, reassuring voice close to my ear. "Just relax.”

Without warning, he reached down and I felt his hands start at my ankles, gently probing, and moving upward along my calves slowly but steadily. My
breath caught in my throat. I knew I should be afraid, but somehow I didn't care. His touch was so experienced, so sure. When his hands moved up onto
my thighs, I gave a slight shudder and partly closed my eyes. My pulse was pounding. I felt his knowing fingers caress my abdomen, my ribcage, and
then as he reached my breasts, I inhaled sharply.

Probing, searching, knowing what he wanted, he brought his hands to my shoulders, slid them down my tingling spine, across my hips, and although I
knew nothing about this man, I felt oddly trusting and expectant.

This is a man, I thought. A man used to taking charge. A man not used to taking `no' for an answer. A man who would tell me what he wanted. A man who
would look into my soul and say ..................."Okay, ma'am, You can board your flight now."

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.